KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the
Judge.  Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of a narrative statement by the Applicant
detailing his ongoing efforts to contact his creditors and settle his debts. Adverse decision
affirmed.
CASENO: 16-01058.a1
DATE: 04/02/2018
DATE: April 2, 2018
In Re:
-------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 16-01058
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
August 18, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision
on the written record.  On October 19, 2017, after considering the record, Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Mark Harvey denied Applicant’s request for
a security clearance.  Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant requested that his case be decided on the written record and then did not respond
to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).  Applicant’s appeal brief contains no
assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.  Rather, it contains new evidence in the form of
a narrative statement by the Applicant detailing his ongoing efforts to contact his creditors and settle
his debts.
The Board cannot consider Applicant’s new evidence on appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29. 
Moreover, we have no authority to grant Applicant’s request for additional time to submit favorable
evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 12, 2014).  The Board does not
review a case de novo.  Its authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party
has alleged the Judge committed harmful error.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 15-01845 at 2 (App. Bd.
Feb. 12, 2018).  Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. 
Therefore, the decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Ra’anan      
Michael Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: James F. Duffy         
James F. Duffy
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Williams S. Fields    
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board